b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
1 edit | Competition really DOES help the comsumer Despite what the local monopolies tell you! |
|
| comcast still sucks no matter what 
I'm stuck with em and hate it heh |
|
| You aren't stuck with them at all. You have a choice to not be a Comcast customer. No one is forcing you. |
|
| I can go comcast or I can go dial up. Let me see.. |
|
| Well...I have Comcast and love it. My point, though, is that you are not being forced to be a customer. If it's so terrible then dial-up may just be better for you. |
|
| Yeah I know where you're coming from. I used to love Comcast up until about 2 months ago. Now its real laggy 24/7. Tech support says everything works as intended and my modem is getting a strong signal. Eh. Everybody in my area has same problem as me. |
|
MordhemLove it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD | reply to entropy1
entropy get off Comcast shaft. The company is the only option for broadband in lots of places and 56k cant work for allot of people who's jobs involve using the pc.
So bloated over priced comcast is the only pic for some people, also not to mention the only cable operators in most states aka Monopoly, lets play tho because Ma Bell is the king of all Monopoly's and when her bell rings comcast will cry a vary.... vary green tear.
--
Baltimore Glass Company(410) 338-1880 2700 Remington AveBaltimore, MD 21211 Bobby Spicer. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to b10010011
said by b10010011:Despite what the local monopolies tell you! Too bad people like you only look at what's 2 feet in front of you and don't see the potential 50 car pileup looming a couple miles down the road.
You could be trading a private "monopoly" (monopoly not really existing in most areas) with many other companies spending great effort trying to break in, for a government monopoly where all those other companies have long given up because they can't under price the government (or a government backed company running with the borrowing power that the taxpayers represent).
--edit--
after reading up a little on UTOPIA it appears they are on the right track to be what I thought would be the optimal solution (ie: government building the infrastructure and letting whoever wants to to use them; kinda like the current highway system). There are only a couple things that concerns me:
1. that they're still not clear on what they're going to do with any profit (it should be refunded back to the companies whoever paid to use the network)
2. they aren't at all set on what their model is (it sounds like they're riding the fence like a politician hoping to push something thru even if it means abandoning their original goal) |
|
| reply to Mordhem
Your first sentence is very insulting and certainly not called for in a public forum. |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to Combat Chuck
Why should profit be given back to the companies that pay to use the network?!
Far better to use it to supplement gov't services and cut taxes for locals? Or to reduce pricing of the broadband/TV service for customers? Or expand the infrastructure? Or pay for more programming?
I don't see why it should be refunded to the companies paying to deliver over the wires... Maybe give them a small discount on next year's payment or something....
KM |
|
 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Combat Chuck
Many industries compete with governments. Private schools and universities compete with government and do just fine. UPS, Fedex and DHL compete with USPS and do just fine. Private security firms compete against the police and do just fine.
These incumbents have brought this upon themselves. If they didn't offer such crap service and such a high price there wouldn't be a demand for muni deployment. But since they do, there is and incumbents are going to have to finally compete. |
|
|
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:Why should profit be given back to the companies that pay to use the network?! Because government should never be in the business of trying to make a profit.
said by KoolMoe:Far better to use it to supplement gov't services and cut taxes for locals? Business doesn't pay taxes, a tax on business is an indirect tax on consumers. The government having the ability to make the infrastructure a cashcow is exactly the reason why I have such a problem with munis. I'll restate: If the government is running a broadband network at a profit, then the network is in effect nothing more than a well disguised luxury tax.
said by KoolMoe:Or to reduce pricing of the broadband/TV service for customers? In the case of UTOPIA, the customer is the company offering service to the enduser.
said by KoolMoe:Or expand the infrastructure? To an extent I would consider this part of maintenence.
said by KoolMoe:Or pay for more programming? The government themselves shouldn't be offering programming. That should be up to the private companies offering services on the network.
said by KoolMoe:I don't see why it should be refunded to the companies paying to deliver over the wires... You don't see why because you think "big business" is evil and should be punished.
Quite frankly IMO I wouldn't have a problem with the government letting companies use their infrastructure for free (maintenance paid by tax dollars; ie:current highway system) because it would allow small businesses to offer service and compete with the big boys on relatively even ground; the problem is that the network would quickly reach capacity with every fly-by-night and computer neophyte with a couple thousand dollars trying to offer BB and having little to no clue how.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to oliphant
said by oliphant:Many industries compete with governments. yeah
said by oliphant:Private schools and universities compete with government and do just fine. And they charge premium prices to do so, very few people can afford to go to private schools on their own.
said by oliphant:UPS, Fedex and DHL compete with USPS and do just fine. mostly picking up in areas where the USPS chooses not to compete; Guaranteed commitment date, large package, customs clearing, dangerous goods, things that shouldn't be banked off walls during sorting, non standard carriage conditions, end to end courier services. Again, at a premium. You won't find anyone Fedex'ing Christmas cards under normal circumstances.
said by oliphant:Private security firms compete against the police and do just fine. The police aren't going to station cops at office buildings, and other places such as nuclear facilities are required to provide on site security. Cops don't do on site security, they're there mostly to clean up afterwards.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! |
|
oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | A lot of private schools cost less in per pupil spending that gov't spends on per pupil spending. There is no where USPS doesn't compete and I can think of no area where neither UPS, Fedex or USPS don't deliver. Only in letter carrying does the USPS not compete and that is because it is illegal for private business to do so. Police currently drive neighborhoods and respond to calls just as private security firms do. You all find them at amusement parts and stadiums.
And given all of these example you still say where they compete with government these businesses do so at a premium. They by your admission are able to compete directly with government despite higher prices.
So the question is, why can't Comcast? The answer is simple. Comcast has redefined the term 'premium' when it comes to price and service is non-existent. |
|
| reply to entropy1
You're not forced to use electricity either.
Or a sewer system.
Or take showers.
You're not forced to eat food.
"If you don't like the way food is being sold to you, don't work to FIX THE PROBLEM just stop eating, duh!" |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to oliphant
Yes they exist as a premium service that the majority of people cannot afford. And the definition of premium ends up being the same service you used to get before the government stepped in.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! |
|
